Re: [rtcweb] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-16: (with COMMENT)

"Black, David" <> Wed, 18 May 2016 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CED128B44; Wed, 18 May 2016 12:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.747
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xaxq47abnVKs; Wed, 18 May 2016 12:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2662E12D692; Wed, 18 May 2016 12:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u4IJlFII009502 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 May 2016 15:47:17 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 u4IJlFII009502
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=jan2013; t=1463600837; bh=2k0oIEgwX8sLityQfwJU+UTwibc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=rxqN64dh3bECMtL2ztt1Y+bzGslvzkdsgh2tW52CyK8HxIV5Nv9UYSN6SBfQNfCUT JukXdIBlvzY7Zty0K8/wPL5Ukm+S2xan2Hy2ayJkASdwPBcr1oR1SBDc6W+SV84sQC rVEi7+f+I4r843Ek6iglV0B5xCDZQu+8ARfowgOM=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 u4IJlFII009502
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 18 May 2016 15:44:23 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u4IJl84L031113 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 May 2016 15:47:09 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Wed, 18 May 2016 15:47:08 -0400
From: "Black, David" <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>, The IESG <>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRsL3pgmZGYRZOg0C3APxN5SCGMp+/FCoQ
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:47:08 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Black, David" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:47:31 -0000

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for the comments.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Section 5:
> The draft claims that "Currently, all WebRTC video is assumed to be
> interactive" and makes a reference to [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports], but
> the referred draft does not contain any explanation regarding this. Is
> this some kind of well known fact in WebRTC circles? If so, is it
> documented somewhere?

The shepherd write-up covered this topic in part:

   IETF LC discussion resulted in minor edits and resolution of one issue.
   The issue arose when Magnus Westerlund asked the (seemingly simple)
   question of how a browser determines whether WebRTC video is interactive.

   The answer turns out to be that the browser doesn't do that - all WebRTC
   video (and actually all media) is interactive for a WebRTC application
   running in a browser because the WebRTC browser API can't specify that
   video (or media) is non-interactive.   In addition to explaining that in
   this draft, the next version (-13) of the WebRTC transports draft
   (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports) will state that all WebRTC media is

There is agreed-to text for the WebRTC transports draft, so I'm a bit surprised
that the revised (-13) version of that draft hasn't appeared yet.   I'm cc:'ing
the RTCWEB WG mailing list to (gently) remind Harald to revise and post that
draft, soon please ;-).

I would suggest that Spencer promise not to announce IESG approval
of this tsvwg-rtcweb-qos draft until that necessary version of the WebRTC
transports draft is posted.

> Section 8:
> Is this really required to be in the document? The shepherd writeup does
> explain the rationale for the downrefs.

This downref explanation was added based on a "show your work" rationale -
part of the context on is that there has been some recent discussion in TSVWG
about a possible revision to RFC 4594, one of the downref-ed RFCs. 

If the IESG would like to see Section 8 removed, that won't be a problem, 
but I'd prefer to see guidance on this from the IESG as a whole.

--David (as draft shepherd).